This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: U.S. to Be World’s Top Oil Producer in 5 Years

Originally Posted by roflpublican

that's massively interventionalist on behalf of the government. but i support the idea completely even if you dont agree with my characterization of it.

I have no problem with state owned business enterprises whatsoever. Local governments have been known to create special non-profits they control to do things that the local government legally cannot do, especially when it comes to buying and rehabilitation of decaying property and reselling it as part of economic development.

Re: U.S. to Be World’s Top Oil Producer in 5 Years

Originally Posted by MarineTpartier

Look, I'm not going to claim to know a lot about this subject because I don't. My point was that the gov't apparently isn't granting permits for new refineries and that maybe they would if said refinery pledged to sell to America only. There's nothing big gov't or central gov't about that. It's merely the gov't giving out a permit that they already give out to existing refineries anyway. I'm not proposing our gov't force them to sell X amount of barrels to them at a certain price or anything like that. They could still sell it on the open market. It just wouldn't be sold to foreign countries.

So a government limits who a company can sell it's products to - including those in other friendly countries - and that is not 'big government' to you?

Re: U.S. to Be World’s Top Oil Producer in 5 Years

We will arguably become a competitor for the top producer (not that we have ever been a minority producer), and perhaps we can overtake Saudi Arabia it depends on a variety of things not the least of which is the long term viability of shale reserves of which the easiest are being accessed right now and which have a quick burn rate. But we will almost certainly not become self-sufficient, even when you include an influx of Canadian crude, but we can contribute to the stability of global prices, increase domestic employment, and reap large returns.

Re: U.S. to Be World’s Top Oil Producer in 5 Years

Originally Posted by Hatuey

No, I compared the false premise that we shouldn't engage in healthier living because it's expensive to another false premise that we shouldn't engage in healthier living because it's expensive. A coke bottle is literally more expensive than a meth hit. So which would you rather have?

Re: U.S. to Be World’s Top Oil Producer in 5 Years

Originally Posted by Neomalthusian

Jesus Christ. You guys have lost it. You have no economic sense whatsoever, do you? Any FREE energy alternative would have an EROEI of infinity, since it's free. People (not just conservative people) will happily take whatever is cheapest.

What TF is "socio-psychopathic neurosis?" Trying to suddenly be a psychiatrist, are we?

Incorrect statement

The US economic system is based upon a protectionist Fascist Corpocratic regime that detests free market discipline.

This is why the USA follows the corporate profit path.

OIL implies wars, wars means US corporate profit.

Nuclear energy is the most expensive, most unclean and most dangerous energy forms and yet the US pursues it with its corporate fascist model in the most violent manner

Are you aware that you cannot INSURE any nuclear power plant anywhere in the world?

So your CHEAPEST option scenario is kind of a silly statement isnt it?

Perhaps you need to read up some more on what your fascist US corpocracy stands for and what it is doing domestically and globally before you attempt to engage in discoursal banter in here

Re: U.S. to Be World’s Top Oil Producer in 5 Years

Industry analysts and players have been quietly wondering for a little while now if the reticence and slow pace of approving new LNG terminals is a subtle form of protectionism to keep domestic natural gas and consequently electricity rates low. A few Congressman like Ed Markey in Massachusetts have been directly attacking the approval of new export licenses, but they have been voices in the wilderness so far. With the late support from President Obama in the last election cycle it seems more favorable that approval will go forward but its still uncertain.

But yes, of course exporting natural gas will cause a rise in prices since right now the US is a massively oversupplied and almost air-tight market. However it also stimulates efforts to expand gas exploration and production and prevents industries from ramping down production and expansion due to an ultra-cheap and oversupplied market. Moreover it provides important revenue generation for the US, spurs further energy innovation, and creates jobs in a new and expanding industry. Moreover expanding natural gas production from shale reserves and hydrofracking also increases, at least for the foreseeable future, crude production due to the associated exploitation of light tight crude deposits.

We might even hit the holy grail and discover an innovative way to approach oil shale and actually make it economical and commercial. But we'll see.